The 2017 UK General Election Thread - Voting open today from 7am - 10pm

[Eighthours]

The problem I have with constantly labelling Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser is that some people seem to forget that we all saw Blair in a tent shaking hands with Gadaffi (y'know the guy behind the biggest terrorist atrocity in the UK). People aren't stupid and they know that inevitably you have to bring people round a table and that means doing business with undesirables, to say the least! I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that Corbyn in any way endorsed the violent tactics of any terrorist organisation.

So whilst Corbyn can be criticised for speaking to these people and 'sharing a platform', putting that against the wider context of who our Government has historically had friendly terms with makes the issue utterly meaningless.

Gaddafi was behind 7/7, what?

[Pancake]

Lockerbie.

[Corazon de Leon]

The problem I have with constantly labelling Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser is that some people seem to forget that we all saw Blair in a tent shaking hands with Gadaffi (y'know the guy behind the biggest terrorist atrocity in the UK). People aren't stupid and they know that inevitably you have to bring people round a table and that means doing business with undesirables, to say the least! I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that Corbyn in any way endorsed the violent tactics of any terrorist organisation.

So whilst Corbyn can be criticised for speaking to these people and 'sharing a platform', putting that against the wider context of who our Government has historically had friendly terms with makes the issue utterly meaningless.

Gadaffi was behind 7/7, what?

Lockerbie bombing was bigger than 7/7, and in the UK.

[Eighthours]

Lockerbie.

Oh, of course! I forgot about that one. Thanks, everyone.

[Hexx]

twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/869493360280653825

[Eighthours]

twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/869493360280653825

Just saw that and have listened to the audio. It's painful.

[KK]

Emma Barnett receiving a lot of abuse from Jeremy Corbyn supporters too. They're so intolerant, and yet never see the irony of their own intolerance and abuse.

[Corazon de Leon]

twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/869493360280653825

Just saw that and have listened to the audio. It's painful.

I haven't listened to this yet but I don't see the point in haranguing a politician on either side like that to pull numbers for a complex bit of policy work out of his arse (especially if you already know the answer) - if he's logging into his iPad to confirm specific numbers why not give him a second to do that? Obviously if they refuse to provide any sort of answer then the interviewer has free license to go to town on the costing issue, but from reading that transcript all he's doing is checking his maths on his iPad, which isn't exactly a capital crime.

[Pancake]

twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/869493360280653825

Just saw that and have listened to the audio. It's painful.

I haven't listened to this yet but I don't see the point in haranguing a politician on either side like that to pull numbers for a complex bit of policy work out of his arse (especially if you already know the answer) - if he's logging into his iPad to confirm specific numbers why not give him a second to do that? Obviously if they refuse to provide any sort of answer then the interviewer has free license to go to town on the costing issue, but from reading that transcript all he's doing is checking his maths on his iPad, which isn't exactly a capital crime.

Agreed. Drives me mental that politicians are expected to remember every single specific number. I don't see why it is important as long as they have tried to work it out!

[Hexx]

twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/869493360280653825

Just saw that and have listened to the audio. It's painful.

I haven't listened to this yet but I don't see the point in haranguing a politician on either side like that to pull numbers for a complex bit of policy work out of his arse (especially if you already know the answer) - if he's logging into his iPad to confirm specific numbers why not give him a second to do that? Obviously if they refuse to provide any sort of answer then the interviewer has free license to go to town on the costing issue, but from reading that transcript all he's doing is checking his maths on his iPad, which isn't exactly a capital crime.

To be fair to her - he was there on Woman's hour to 'launch' the policy

It's not like she randomly pulled out the manifesto and said on "Paragraph 13 page 48 you say what number?!?!?!?"

It's an easy obvious question and interviewer is going to ask for any policy launch and going "Er... a lot" or "What do you think?" is not great for building confidence.

[Errkal]

It is a bit gooseberry fool he didn't have the number ready, however if he has the means to get them and is trying to do that shut up and let him do it. It is better he takes a second and get the numbers than makes them up, also it shows he actually has numbers rather than May's approach of dont worry about the numbers well sort that later.

[That]

I haven't listened to this yet but I don't see the point in haranguing a politician on either side like that to pull numbers for a complex bit of policy work out of his arse (especially if you already know the answer) - if he's logging into his iPad to confirm specific numbers why not give him a second to do that? Obviously if they refuse to provide any sort of answer then the interviewer has free license to go to town on the costing issue, but from reading that transcript all he's doing is checking his maths on his iPad, which isn't exactly a capital crime.

In general I would definitely like politics to move in a direction where it's more like "fair enough for double-checking the actual figure and not trying to bullshit us." There is presently a disconnect between what it means to be good at media encounters and what it means to be a good politician, and it's a shame we assess our leaders based on the former rather than the latter.

However, I would laugh my sides open had it happened to a Tory, so to avoid accusations of hypocrisy from Eighthours I'll admit that it's quite funny.

[Corazon de Leon]

I haven't listened to this yet but I don't see the point in haranguing a politician on either side like that to pull numbers for a complex bit of policy work out of his arse (especially if you already know the answer) - if he's logging into his iPad to confirm specific numbers why not give him a second to do that? Obviously if they refuse to provide any sort of answer then the interviewer has free license to go to town on the costing issue, but from reading that transcript all he's doing is checking his maths on his iPad, which isn't exactly a capital crime.

In general I would definitely like politics to move in a direction where it's more like "fair enough for double-checking the actual figure and not trying to bullshit us." There is presently a disconnect between what it means to be good at media encounters and what it means to be a good politician, and it's a shame we assess our leaders based on the former rather than the latter.

However, I would laugh my sides open had it happened to a Tory, so to avoid accusations of hypocrisy from Eighthours I'll admit that it's quite funny.

I did chuckle at it to be fair, but I'd have the same view if it was May, Sturgeon, Woods, Farron or anyone else; I'd rather a politician not bullshit me by pulling a number from nowhere and double checks something he's asked; everyone has the odd lapse of memory when they're in the spotlight, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

EDIT: For the record, I'm not planning to vote Labour at this election; I just think that the current political interview trend of shouting over a politician to draw the internet's attention to yourself is a little bit pathetic.

[Moggy]

As others have said, I don't see why it is a problem if a politician has to look up a number. I don't really expect them to have literally everything memorised and it strikes me as a good thing if a politician double checks their figures before spouting off rather than just making it up and getting things horribly wrong (like Abbott does).

I hope that I would say the same if it was May, Nuttall or any of the others that I dislike.

[Lagamorph]

I think the issue is that it shows a lack of preparation on his part. He was on the show specifically to launch a new policy and he should have prepared the key facts and figures for that policy beforehand. The first thing any interviewer is going to ask about a new policy is "How much will it cost and where will the money come from?"

If he can't prepare for a simple interview where he knows going in what kind of questions he's going to be asked how can he be expected to be prepared for any important duty of a Prime Minister?

[Return_of_the_STAR]

twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/869493360280653825

Just saw that and have listened to the audio. It's painful.

I haven't listened to this yet but I don't see the point in haranguing a politician on either side like that to pull numbers for a complex bit of policy work out of his arse (especially if you already know the answer) - if he's logging into his iPad to confirm specific numbers why not give him a second to do that? Obviously if they refuse to provide any sort of answer then the interviewer has free license to go to town on the costing issue, but from reading that transcript all he's doing is checking his maths on his iPad, which isn't exactly a capital crime.

To be fair to her - he was there on Woman's hour to 'launch' the policy

It's not like she randomly pulled out the manifesto and said on "Paragraph 13 page 48 you say what number?!?!?!?"

It's an easy obvious question and interviewer is going to ask for any policy launch and going "Er... a lot" or "What do you think?" is not great for building confidence.

Yeah i agree, he was there to launch the policy, it's a pretty obvious question that he's going to be asked. The media always ask how much a new policy is going to cost. This is a major mistake by him and his team. The real answer though is that we don't know how much it will cost as all the figures are just guess work.

Normally though when they are asked random finance questions that they aren't prepared for i don't understand why they don't just hold their hands up and say 'i'm sorry i don't have the figure for you but i will find out asap', just be honest.

[Hypes]

twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/869493360280653825

Just saw that and have listened to the audio. It's painful.

I haven't listened to this yet but I don't see the point in haranguing a politician on either side like that to pull numbers for a complex bit of policy work out of his arse (especially if you already know the answer) - if he's logging into his iPad to confirm specific numbers why not give him a second to do that? Obviously if they refuse to provide any sort of answer then the interviewer has free license to go to town on the costing issue, but from reading that transcript all he's doing is checking his maths on his iPad, which isn't exactly a capital crime.

Agreed. Drives me mental that politicians are expected to remember every single specific number. I don't see why it is important as long as they have tried to work it out!

The simple answer is don't provide any costings so you don't get pulled up on them. Then repeat strong and stable soundbites until interviewer gives in

[Eighthours]

I haven't listened to this yet but I don't see the point in haranguing a politician on either side like that to pull numbers for a complex bit of policy work out of his arse (especially if you already know the answer) - if he's logging into his iPad to confirm specific numbers why not give him a second to do that? Obviously if they refuse to provide any sort of answer then the interviewer has free license to go to town on the costing issue, but from reading that transcript all he's doing is checking his maths on his iPad, which isn't exactly a capital crime.

In general I would definitely like politics to move in a direction where it's more like "fair enough for double-checking the actual figure and not trying to bullshit us." There is presently a disconnect between what it means to be good at media encounters and what it means to be a good politician, and it's a shame we assess our leaders based on the former rather than the latter.

However, I would laugh my sides open had it happened to a Tory, so to avoid accusations of hypocrisy from Eighthours I'll admit that it's quite funny.

Corbyn is getting much better at these encounters, so this was a rare blip to be fair to him. It must have been a late night for him last night, so fatigue probably had something to do with it. However, context doesn't really matter when this kind of clip will be replayed time and time again. He was there primarily to launch the policy, so it's criminal not to have the figures to hand. No excuse for that.

[Cuttooth]

Oh dear this is probably the first major gaffe of the whole campaign.

The Conservatives can get away with it by being vague and just not putting the effort in to convince anyone that they've even done a good job in government. Theresa May last night said things like social care were close to collapse, which isn't the best thing to talk about after seven years of being in government!

The most shocking thing is that the top rated comments on the DM website are positive towards Corbyn

The interesting thing is that there's loads of comments saying that a load of pro Corbyn and anti may comments keep getting removed.

I'm still expecting a tory win though.

To me it still feels like 2015's GE. There's a sudden "surge" of interest in Labour. Young hip people are all over it. Millifandon, Brand etc etc. There's a real certainty that the momentum (no pun intended) is behind them, their time has come, they're fighting the man and the establishment etc

Then the results come and they have to deal with the fact that outside their social media or small social circle echo chambers nothing's changed.

Results night/day is gonna be interesting. Whatever side wins we'll get to watch the losers supporters with Schadenfreude.

Should we do an election sweep stake?

Edit - 2015, not 2010

The current discrepancy in the polls seems to be down to how many younger voters will actually turn out, so a lot does ride on how much the current surge matches the actual turnout.

I think there might end up being a difference this time round after the apathy of the 18-34 vote cost Remain last year. There's a very real sense of not letting your future be decided by older generations because of Brexit.

I still can't see it being enough though because that core Tory support just won't go away.

I'm hoping Corbyn wins more votes than Brown or Miliband and vindicates the shift left that the PLP refused to back from his first win, allowing him to shift the leadership on to someone who'll carry that through without making the likes of strawberry floating John McDonnell Shadow Chancellor.

The most likely proper shock outcome will be a hung parliament that leaves the Tories teaming up with the DUP. May would be toast at that point.

[Tafdolphin]

The current discrepancy in the polls seems to be down to how many younger voters will actually turn out, so a lot does ride on how much the current surge matches the actual turnout.

I think there might end up being a difference this time round after the apathy of the 18-34 vote cost Remain last year. There's a very real sense of not letting your future be decided by older generations because of Brexit.

I still can't see it being enough though because that core Tory support just won't go away.

I'm hoping Corbyn wins more votes than Brown or Miliband and vindicates the shift left that the PLP refused to back from his first win, allowing him to shift the leadership on to someone who'll carry that through without making the likes of strawberry floating John McDonnell Shadow Chancellor.

The most likely proper shock outcome will be a hung parliament that leaves the Tories teaming up with the DUP. May would be toast at that point.

Give it 10 years and a couple of cold winters.